Now he said that all "proper linguists" agree with him and he gets only negative feedback from "enthusiasts".
(Seriously I have a degree in historical linguistics... proper linguists..... 
)
Edit: so I told him I'm at least a semi-proper linguist and I still think his method and results are flawed, and he replies:
Quote:Interesting - in that case you should be more impartial and willing to take a leap of faith that I am correct. That way, you'll know either way by empirical means rather than taking a prior stance.
As I've said, I am not a VM enthusiast, so my statement holds no bias. Therefore, you should conclude that I would have no reason to present a solution if it weren't correct.
And, on that basis you should conduct your own investigation of my solution to see for yourself. Be prepared for some hard work though, as it takes a lot of research - I mean several hours to locate a single word sometimes. Remember, forget the VM myth and focus on the science.
I have dedicated my life to science.
I'm done.
(09-11-2017, 10:28 PM)Cheshire Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Interesting - in that case you should be more impartial and willing to take a leap of faith that I am correct. That way, you'll know either way by empirical means rather than taking a prior stance.
...
I have dedicated my life to science.
He is asking you to take a leap of faith (a leap of faith is subjective) so that you'll know by empirical means?
That statement is a complete contradiction.
And the part about taking a "prior stance" is a pretty rude thing to say, considering you took time out of your life to read it, to share it with us, and to respond to it. That's a pretty supportive and courteous thing to do that people with a "prior stance" (whatever he means by that) would probably not have followed through on.
Oh gawd... I just had an awful thought.
This guy is going to get a PhD and people will listen to what he says even if he's wrong, and be afraid to critique him even if he is wrong just because of the initials behind his name.
Yeah actually he'd been implicitly insulting me the whole time. First I was "one of the few scholars selected to receive his paper" and as soon as I pointed out the problems with his paper I was a deranged "enthusiast".
The funny thing is that his paper was a full-blown Voynich solution, which he denied because he said "MS 408" instead of Voynich.
This manuscript has a strange effect on people... or just a tendency to attract those with pre-existing conditions
I've been long crestfallen at the prospects of Russian science, but now I see that British science is our fellow in misery.
He's sent that paper to every scientist and pundit who's ever been remotely connected to the Voynich.
(Except me. Not sure whether I'm relieved or rejected!)
But hey. As a Gloucester lad, it lets me be superior about Bristol
I think we all know where to file this one.
(14-11-2017, 09:59 PM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.He's sent that paper to every scientist and pundit who's ever been remotely connected to the Voynich.
(Except me. Not sure whether I'm relieved or rejected!)
But hey. As a Gloucester lad, it lets me be superior about Bristol
I think we all know where to file this one.
David, he must be saving us for later - I didn't receive it either. Seems he's a troll with too much time on his hands
I note that, while he seems to note that [a] and [y] are related, he fails to really understand why they differ. I find that frustrating.
(Though I like that the equivalence of [a] and [y] now seems to be accepted wisdom. I've seen it mentioned half a dozen times in the work of others, though without attribution.)
Mr. Cheshire sent me a second paper. I have only read the first paragraph, which was enough to know that this is an attempt to desperately defend the linguistic impossibilities proposed in the first paper.
Quote:Having announced the discovery of the writing system used for manuscript MS408, in the paper titled Linguistic Missing Links, it has become apparent that the concept of a solution comprising an unknown language and alphabet has been difficult for some to accept, despite the paradigm being entirely logical and the argument being supported by a raft of supporting evidence. Above all, it is apparent that those unfamiliar with the science of palaeography have a naïve expectation that the solution should offer a means of simply rendering the manuscript text into modern language without the application of effort and the deployment of intelligence.
I'll just hide under my moderator cap and refrain from further comments
The paper can be read here: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
(12-01-2018, 07:57 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Mr. Cheshire sent me a second paper. I have only read the first paragraph, which was enough to know that this is an attempt to desperately defend the linguistic impossibilities proposed in the first paper.
Quote:Having announced the discovery of the writing system used for manuscript MS408, in the paper titled Linguistic Missing Links, it has become apparent that the concept of a solution comprising an unknown language and alphabet has been difficult for some to accept, despite the paradigm being entirely logical and the argument being supported by a raft of supporting evidence. Above all, it is apparent that those unfamiliar with the science of palaeography have a naïve expectation that the solution should offer a means of simply rendering the manuscript text into modern language without the application of effort and the deployment of intelligence.
I'll just hide under my moderator cap and refrain from further comments
The paper can be read here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
OMG!
None of the people who critiqued his ideas exhibited a "naive expectation that the solution should offer a means of simply rendering the manuscript text into modern language... etc. blah blah blah".
He obviously didn't even understand the criticisms if this is his counter-argument (or doesn't want to ).